[BetteBoop]

Honestly, in some of the cases of abuse I've seen, I think that child would have been better off never having been born. The amount of physical and emotional pain they have been through, and will continue to go through for the rest of their lives is unfathomable.

You think people are better off dead than having suffered trauma? I wonder if the kids who experienced those things feel the same way.

And what about kids who have suffered horrific pain that isn't a result of abuse? Like kids born with congenital disability or illness.

Are they better off dead too?

[la di dah]

I'd settle for "full potential" being defined as free from FAS, preventable congenital anomalies and brain damage. That's quite a good beginning.

I don't actually agree with forcibly preventing all congenital anomalies. I do think people with unfortunate genetics, for example, or in less than optimal compatibility with their chosen partner, have the right to procreate as they choose?

Obviously there's always going to a margin of parenting faults that may impact on the "full potential" of the the child, but there is certainly a difference between those "normal" faults like smacking them out of frustration, not reading to them enough, arguing with your husband in front of them, etc. And bringing a baby into the world who, the second she or he is born, already faces terrible hardship.

What about hereditary predisposition to disease?

I'm curious where the terrible hardship thing starts and ends and what conditions are encompassed. Only mental disabilities? Physical ones? Hereditary disease known to the mother? Is it wrong to carry to term a child you know could/will have limitations, and face prejudice? I'm honestly not sure I'm comfortable with the argument we should be working towards a 0 birthrate of the not "normal" faults through anything except advances in medical care and education.

I'm going to assume you're not approaching FAS and Downs' or cerebral palsy quite the same way as each other. But I do wonder where the terrible hardship thing is defined and how it would cover things that aren't drugs but are lifestyle-influenced like, say, maternal age or obesity?

And is it wrong to know your pregnancy has symptoms of abnormality or failed tests, and to choose to continue it? I am extremely pro-choice, I think a woman has a right to abort for any abnormality, normality, or disliking the due date's sun sign, but I do not believe she should be obligated to terminate a pregnancy due to bad amniocentesis results? I think the information and options, assuming she agreed to testing, should be provided, but I don't believe one is ethically obliged to birth only medically normal babies?

[Koufuku]

I am going to write (and hide) something about abuse which may be disturbing for people to read, so please don't continue if you might find it to be a trigger.

I taught a boy who's drug addicted parents had sold his body for drugs. He had been subjected to penetrative anal sex since before he could walk. His entire lower digestive tract was destroyed. He had no muscle control in his anus or pelvic floor. He was also severely mentally traumatised. He would never ever be able to function as a normal human being. NEVER. He was born with heroin addiction, but according to early health assessments was developmentally normal. He could have had a normal life, if he had been placed into the care of loving and protective guardians. But he will never escape from the torment he endured. So, yes, I do think he would have been better off never having experienced life. You probably would too, had you seen the horrific details of the 5 years of life he'd lived before I met him.

The difference between this boy, and people born with hereditary disease is that no-one forces hereditary disease. No-one chooses hereditary disease. People with addiction often choose to continue pregnancies, and choose to continue using while pregnant. Completely different kettle of fish. Incomparable, I think.

Maternal age and obesity do not, alone, impact on your ability to make good decisions about the care of your unborn (and earth-walking) children. Drug and alcohol addiction does.

[Pooks*potters]

I agree with you LDD. I come at it from a slightly different angle, though, because already we have a scenario where child protective services can become involved with a woman who is yet to give birth in order to assess the safety of that child. Children can be removed from the mother at birth based on the mother's actions during pregnancy. So there is already some grey area there. If the fetus is not a person with rights, then why would it matter what the mother did whilst pregnant?

I have been thinking about this thread and I am really appreciating the well thought out arguments, and the way it challenges my thinking.

I am now wondering whether an opt-in service where those with drug addictions can agree to being detained would be reasonable.

I know that might sound so bizarre, but so many people stop treatment because they can. So many people want to do it, they want to change, but then the addiction becomes to strong to fight so they just leave. Often, right around the time you are seeing some really positive change. Change can be hard for anyone.

So what if someone said, ok, I don't want to lose my baby, I want help, and if I run, stop me. How would that stand, ethically, do you think?

[BetteBoop]

Koufuku, I have some experience with sexual abuse of kids.

Parents can abuse their children horrifically for no reason at all. This is not behaviour that is any way confined to drug addicted parents.

And the men who were raping this boy are as much to blame.

Locking drug addicted pregnant women up won't stop child rape. If it would, I would probably have a different opinion.

But given the overwhelming majority of child rape is perpetrated by adult males on either their own child or a child they're related to, shouldn't we be focussing on stopping that behaviour? Removing one child from a dangerous environment isn't going to change the fact that the men who raped him have probably raped many other kids.

[Koufuku]

Absolutely Beetlebop!! That is completely true, but the overwhelming truth of this story was that the drugs were of utmost importance and the welfare and safety of this little person was not.

Removing one child from a dangerous environment isn't going to change the fact that the men who raped him have probably raped many other kids.

Having parents who weren't addicted would have changed his life, and that would have been something. I taught him 11 years ago and it haunts me to this day. I have dealt with many other abuse cases too. Like the time we were talking about Mothers' Day and how we help our mums and one little 5 year old girl said "I help my mum do needles. I just hold the spoon on the flame until it bubbles."

Not OK! What kind of life does that little girl have any hope of having? Really? I hate the drug abuse cycle!!! I'm so weary of dealing with the mess that people PURPOSEFULLY inflict on their children.

[la di dah]

Koufuku, that story to me doesn't illustrate anything about what happened to that boy while he was a fetus. He wasn't actually irreperably damaged until after he was born?

Intervention in infancy is not what I was arguing against and there is no argument he *had* to suffer all that he did or not be born at all, that I can see?

Children born with no disabilities at all are sometimes put through unimaginably horrendous abuse. Doesn't mean able-bodied children shouldn't be born, obviously.

I would be, obviously (I hope no one believes I am a completely empathy-free sociopath) for pulling a child out of the situation you described regardless of the mother's drug use in pregnancy. I don't really care if she was on heroin, a stone-cold sociopath, or deep in her own abusive relationship and just letting someone else do that. It wouldn't be a mitigating factor that she *wasn't* on drugs, after all.

I have known women who were addicts who were bad parents, some who maintained some connections but never were in a primary caregiver role, and some who did care deeply about their children.

I also know women who were addicts who through their own agreement did not have custody when their infants were newborn but were able to transition into the role with family and psychiatric support, and were not abusive.

I honestly can't see putting all mothers who did drugs in pregnancy in the same basket, or all sober mothers either.

I've seen really ****ed situations where the mother wasn't a user but had other emotional/mental issues and other people in the home WERE users, and also violent. I'm not sure I'd give her a big gold star (or maintained custody) simply for having a nice placental barrier when her kids grew up with more fractures than hot meals.

That's not defending the parents in the story you describe, I hope you can see I don't mean that.

[CallMeProtart]

Kofuku - horrific stories - but moot since it is the post foetal trauma you have described?

I reckon we go all Gattaca on their arses and forbid production of anything other than the optimal child. At least that was non gender biased.